A very thin line marks the difference between retro and vintage, but both terms are often intermingled. My intention is to draw that line of short, clear and concise manner, so that it will easy to distinguish.
Ateniéndome my own definition of what is retro, it is objects that evoke the past, but that do not necessarily belong to him, not even to have been designed in the past, simply use the aesthetic of another time trying to appeal to our nostalgia.
On the other hand, vintage makes direct reference to the past through garments or objects that were designed and manufactured in the period to which the style belongs. Normally, the term is associated with creations of great designers who are kept in very good condition and has great economic value, but also can be used for any old thing we decide to take to the fore, whenever you have something to contribute aesthetically, and not simply old.
So that you can get an idea an old fridge American style of the 50’s or 60’s vintage, while new refrigerators manufactured imitating that style, they are retro. Or to take a more general example; if we bought a new Mini Cooper we’re retro, while if rescued a Mini scrapping (or some other antique car, as the precious photo Jaguar), then our style is vintage.
I think with this small and simple idea will be easy to see the difference between retro and vintage from now on. They are two very similar concepts, but in essence are completely different. Retro is rather a resource designer, looking to the past for inspiration, while vintage is a lifestyle, a sample of postmodern culture that denies progress and innovation and prefer to look past what not expects the future.